p Marxism is a science studying the laws and conditions determining the processes of social life. It combines abstract theoretical thought and profoundly concrete knowledge. Besides, Marxism calls for imaginativeness and dedication. “~‘We should dream!’ I wrote these words and became alarmed,” Lenin humorously remarked in his “What Is to Be Done?”.

p He imagined himself being sternly asked by a Social-Democrat: “...has a Marxist any right at all to dream, knowing that according to Marx mankind always sets itself the tasks it can solve and that tactics is a process of the growth of Party tasks which grow together with the Party?

p “The very thought of these stern questions. . .,” Lenin wrote, “makes me wish for nothing but a place to hide in.” And he tried “to hide” behind Pisarev’s words concerning the naturalness and the necessity of a certain rift between reality and the dream that ran ahead of this reality. Otherwise, Pisarev claimed, it would 6 be impossible to imagine “what stimulus there would be to induce man to undertake and complete extensive and strenuous work in the sphere of art, science, and practical endeavour. .. The rift between dreams and reality causes no harm if only the person dreaming believes seriously in his dream, if he attentively observes life, compares his observations with his castles in the air, and if, generally speaking, ho works conscientiously for the achievement of his fantasies. If there is some connection between dreams and life then all is well.” And Lenin concludes in all seriousness: “Of this kind of dreaming there is unfortunately too little in our movement.”   [6•1 

p During past millennia man has dreamed and some of his dreams have come true enabling him to find a way to reality no matter how complex it may be.

p The sculptor or architect scrutinises and ponders over the natural properties and secrets of a rock in order to give it clear-cut and meaningful outlines, seeing a way for his dream to materialise. But when it comes to radically changing social life and mentality the task is far more involved. It is a process that entails a thorough scrutiny ranging from a whole complex of the most abstract economic laws and concrete phenomena, down to intricate mechanics of human sentiments.

p Lenin was not a psychologist. But one of his earlier works, “What the ‘Friends of the People’ Are and How They Fight Against the Social- Democrats”, contains Lenin’s lively and astute reaction to Sechenov’s works which marked a 7 turning point in psychology as a science. Lenin noted the scientist’s absolutely new understanding of psychology—the result of Sechenov’s successful analysis of formerly unexplained psychological phenomena. Lenin highly appreciated the foremost materialistic trends in Russia’s research in psychology. But Lenin himself had a different approach to psychology. His interest in the subject stemmed from the need for a clear and comprehensive understanding of people’s inner motives and sentiments. That was necessary for the cause of the proletarian revolution, the cause of the Party. A study of mass psychology was essential for estimating at any given time the relative strength of the revolutionary forces. Lenin’s works contain a wealth of sober and, at the same time, stirring observations with regard to sentiments, psychological shifts and conditions of different strata of society at different moments of history.

p “Legal Marxists” and Menshevik Social- Democrats often spoke of the need for taking into account the psychology of different classes and social groups. But they were mainly attracted by those aspects of social psychology which, according to them, indicated that the people were not socially and psychologically prepared for an immediate revolutionary upheaval. Their theoretical approach, in fact, made them oblivious of everything else around them. Noteworthy in this respect is Lenin’s polemics with P. Struve, the Russian bourgeois philosopher and economist, concerning the presence of such “socio- psychical conditions”   [7•1  for the revolution.

p Struve was opposed to the slogan of insurrection inasmuch as mass-scale propaganda of a democratic programme alone, as he claimed, could create the necessary socio-psychological conditions. Lenin explained that to make such pronouncements at the time when the revolution had already begun meant moving backwards to suit the liberal bourgeoisie. “Just as in the Frankfort Parliament of 1848 the bourgeois windbags were busy drawing up resolutions, declarations, and decisions, engaging in ‘mass propaganda’ and preparing the ‘socio-psychological conditions,’ when it was a matter of repelling the government’s armed forces, when the movement had ‘led to the necessity’ of an armed struggle,”   [8•1  Lenin wrote. Peshekhonov, a Socialist Revolutionary with Menshevik leanings, demanded that the slogan of replacing the monarchy by the republic “must be deleted from the ‘platform’: ‘We must reckon with the psychological factor. . . The monarchist idea is too deeply rooted in the popular mind.. . This psychology of the broad masses must be reckoned with... The question of the republic calls for extreme caution’.” Lenin caustically criticised this kind of psychologism. Instead of mercilessly combating monarchist prejudices, he writes, Peshekhonov “justifies the knout on the grounds that it has a thousand years of history behind it. . .” and deduces that the knout must be treated with extreme caution. “We must not pander to the proprietary or owning instincts of this class,” Lenin went on to say, “but, on the con 9 trary, at once begin to combat these instincts.”   [9•1 

p As distinct from “legal Marxists” and Mensheviks, Lenin detected even the slightest symptoms of revolutionary sentiments and the possibility of merging them in a single current. Lenin had a keen eye for most deep-going and hardly discernible processes in the spiritual life of society. He possessed this knack at all times, during the rise and decline of revolutionary activity, before and after the October Revolution.

p Lenin stressed the need for studying the people’s aspirations as they invariably reflect mass psychology. In 1920, he wrote: “...we must learn to approach the masses with particular patience and caution so as to be able to understand the distinctive features in the mentality of each stratum, calling, etc., of these masses.”  [9•2  The economic and social conditions of every class, every stratum and every profession help shape the psychology of each particular group. He therefore strongly felt that the psychological aspect should be taken into account in defining the characteristic features of the proletariat, for instance. He deemed it necessary to “define the term ‘worker’ in such a way as to include only those who have acquired a proletarian mentality from their very conditions of life. But this is impossible unless the persons concerned have worked in a factory for many years—not from ulterior motives, but because of the general conditions of their economic and social life.”   [9•3 

p In every concrete case, in every element of revolutionary practice Lenin sought to fathom the psychology and sentiments of social forces. “Please write speedily and let us know what the feeling is in this respect,”   [10•1  he used to ask in his correspondence. He considered, for instance, that the workers’ deputy should have learned from a number of prominent and influential workers “how matters stood, what the workers thought about it, and what the mood of the masses was.”   [10•2  Lenin pointed to a wide range of information on social psychology, that is essential for guiding a mass movement. Hostile sources should also be used, he said. “Every effort must be made to collect, verify and study these objective data concerning the behaviour and moods, not of individuals or groups, but of the masses, data taken from different and hostile newspapers, data that are verifiable by any literate person.

“Only from such data can one learn and study the movement of one’s class.”   [10•3